I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Zom »

I'm a bit confused, are you suggesting that metta in and of itself does not bring about good worldly vipaka?
Yes. Just as any other mental quality does not generate kamma. Kamma is born from a particular intentional deed.
How does this accord with the Velama Sutta AN 9.20 which says it is more fruitful to feed 1 Sammasambuddha than 100 arahants?
Maybe these numbers should not be take literally. But still, in MN 142 Buddha denies an individual offering to him (as to the Buddha) and instead strongly recommends to make an offering to the Sangha. Why? Because it is more fruitful than any kind of individual offering.
Tom
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:50 pm

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Tom »

Zom wrote:
I'm a bit confused, are you suggesting that metta in and of itself does not bring about good worldly vipaka?
Yes. Just as any other mental quality does not generate kamma. Kamma is born from a particular intentional deed.
How does this accord with the Velama Sutta AN 9.20 which says it is more fruitful to feed 1 Sammasambuddha than 100 arahants?
Maybe these numbers should not be take literally. But still, in MN 142 Buddha denies an individual offering to him (as to the Buddha) and instead strongly recommends to make an offering to the Sangha. Why? Because it is more fruitful than any kind of individual offering.
In the footnotes to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Majjhima, I found this:
"MA states that a gift offered to an immoral bhikkhu taken to represent the entire Sangha is more fruitful than a gift offered on a personal basis to an arahant. But for the gift to be properly presented to the Sangha, the donor must take no account of the personal qualities of the recipient but must see him solely as representing the Sangha as a whole."
So it seems to me perhaps "giving to the Sangha" can refer to physically giving an item to a single Bhikkhu as well. Can anyone else (Zom included, if he wishes to) chime in on this?
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Dhammanando »

Tom wrote:So it seems to me perhaps "giving to the Sangha" can refer to physically giving an item to a single Bhikkhu as well.
Yes, that's right. What makes the difference is (1) that with saṅghadāna the giver mentally determines that the gift is for the saṅgha as a whole (even though it may be only one bhikkhu who receives it) and (2) that she undiscriminatingly gives it either to the first bhikkhu she sees or to whichever bhikkhu the saṅgha has appointed to receive it.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by SarathW »

Bhate
There are so many divisions in Buddhist Sangha.
Does it matter what is whole Sangha means?
I am asking this question on the basis that giving to Sangha is more meritorious than giving to non-Sangha.
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Dhammanando »

SarathW wrote:There are so many divisions in Buddhist Sangha.
Does it matter what is whole Sangha means?
Though there are many monastic nikāyas it is generally assumed by Buddhists that all of their ordination lineages extend back to the Buddha's time. So in that sense Buddhist monastics constitute one sangha.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Zom »

"MA states that a gift offered to an immoral bhikkhu taken to represent the entire Sangha is more fruitful than a gift offered on a personal basis to an arahant. But for the gift to be properly presented to the Sangha, the donor must take no account of the personal qualities of the recipient but must see him solely as representing the Sangha as a whole."
So it seems to me perhaps "giving to the Sangha" can refer to physically giving an item to a single Bhikkhu as well. Can anyone else (Zom included, if he wishes to) chime in on this?
As far as I understand, Vinaya allows for a local Sangha of 4 bhikkhus (or more, ofc) to assign 1 bhikkhu for dana receiving. But in this case a donor must know that this is the case, otherwise, he does not generate "sangha" kamma, even if he desires so. In dana not only the intention, but the object is very important. If the object in reality is something different from what you think - it still matters.
Tom
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:50 pm

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Tom »

Zom wrote:
"MA states that a gift offered to an immoral bhikkhu taken to represent the entire Sangha is more fruitful than a gift offered on a personal basis to an arahant. But for the gift to be properly presented to the Sangha, the donor must take no account of the personal qualities of the recipient but must see him solely as representing the Sangha as a whole."
So it seems to me perhaps "giving to the Sangha" can refer to physically giving an item to a single Bhikkhu as well. Can anyone else (Zom included, if he wishes to) chime in on this?
As far as I understand, Vinaya allows for a local Sangha of 4 bhikkhus (or more, ofc) to assign 1 bhikkhu for dana receiving. But in this case a donor must know that this is the case, otherwise, he does not generate "sangha" kamma, even if he desires so. In dana not only the intention, but the object is very important. If the object in reality is something different from what you think - it still matters.
Do you have a textual reference for this?
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Zom »

Do you have a textual reference for this?
Somewhere in the Vinaya. No direct link.
Cormac Brown
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:10 am

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Cormac Brown »

manas wrote:Sorry if my post offends, but I just wanted to point out an issue in Buddhism, and some other religions, that I find a little disturbing. It is the idea of 'making merit' for oneself, by 'doing good works'. It sounds just a little calculating and self-serving to me. If I have an apple in my hand, and before me I see a starving beggar child, and a plump arahant on alms round, I will give the apple to the starving beggar child, yes even if that means I miss out on a million 'merit points' and a thousand years of feasting in Heaven. Give where there is the greatest need, not where it will make things better for oneself. And on the side of 'demerit' - the reason I don't kill little bugs, isn't because I would would incur a reaction for doing so; the reason I don't kill them, is because I feel for them, I have empathy for these little creatures. Same with human beings. How sad that some folks actually need to be threatened with pain and suffering, so that they restrain themselves from inflicting it on others.
Manas, as the Buddha said, one should give where the heart feels most inspired. If you want your gift to bear great fruit, though, he recommends giving it to those free of greed, hatred and delusion. In giving to an arahant, you're not just making things better for oneself, you're making things better for the world. The existence of people free of defilement makes the world a better place. They radiate goodness, are rare instances of beings who successfully advocate harmlessness to all beings; and what's more, they can teach others to free themselves of defilements. Defilements, i.e. greed, hatred and delusion, are the most terrible diseases there are, afflicting countless beings everywhere. The only person who can cure one's defilements is oneself. In cleaning them out of your mind you're doing a service to the world. Giving to someone free of defilement puts you closer to the path of being free from them yourself.

This is my view, I hope it's not misrepresenting the truth, and that it's helpful to you.

Best wishes,

Cormac
“I in the present who am a worthy one, rightly self-awakened, am a
teacher of action, a teacher of activity, a teacher of persistence. But the
worthless man Makkhali contradicts even me, (saying,) ‘There is no
action. There is no activity. There is no persistence.’ "
AN 3.138, trans. Ven. Thanissaro
Tom
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:50 pm

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Post by Tom »

Zom wrote:I don't think this sentence in Velama sutta should be undrestood literally. For example, there are some similar sentences about metta in SN suttas but there it is to be understood figuratively. I've already written the difference between merit gaining and qualities development and that sentence in Velama sutta is, of course, not about merits, but about qualities. Metta is a "merit" figuratevily - not literally. While dana is a "merit" literally, not figuratevily.
Which SN suttas are you referring to?
Post Reply